Malayan Rules Journal Reports/2000/Volume 2/LIM GUAN ENG versus PUBLIC PROSECUTOR -  2 MLJ 577 -- 18 06 1999
 2 MLJ 577
LIM GUAN ENG v OPEN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
NATIONAL COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
EUSOFF CHIN KEY JUSTICE, WAN ADNAN CJ (MALAYA) AND ZAKARIA YATIM FCJ FELONY APPEAL EM M05-3 OF 1998, M-05-4 OF 1998 AND M-05-5 OF 98 18 June 1999
Lawbreaker Law -- Malicious publication of phony news -- Detention of under-aged woman published as 'imprisonment' -- Presumption of malicious syndication, rebuttal of -- Evaluation applicable -- Printing Pushes and Journals Act 1984 s 8A(1)
Criminal Regulation -- Sedition -- Newsletter of fake news -- Conviction upon uncorroborated proof of one see -- Whether witness was corroborated simply by own previous statement -- Seditious Work 1948 t 6(1) -- Evidence Work 1950 ss 73A & 157
The appellant was charged with two accidents. The initial charge was under s 8A(1) from the Printing Presses and Journals Act 1984 for maliciously publishing fake news by means of a pamphlet entitled 'Mangsa Dipenjarakan'. The 2nd charge was under s i9000 4(1)(b) in the Sedition Act 1948 to make a presentation which included seditious words. Both costs were to find the non-prosecution of an supposed rape case involving Suntan Sri Rahim Thamby Chik with a great under-aged girl. The Substantial Court located the appellant guilty of the two charges, convicted and fined him (see  a few MLJ 14). The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against his croyance and phrases while the Community Prosecutor become a huge hit against the content. The The courtroom of Appeal dismissed the appellant's speaks against verite and paragraphs but allowed the Public Prosecutor's cross-appeals and sentenced the appellant to imprisonment (see  three or more MLJ 14). The appellant appealed. Advice submitted, inter alia, that s 6(1) of the Seditious Act 1948 does not grant conviction associated with an offence underneath s four on the uncorroborated testimony of just one witness. Therefore , according to him, the trial evaluate was incorrect in convicting the appellant on the second charge on such basis as the uncorroborated evidence of Kpl Stanley Liew. The criminal prosecution argued on the other hand that, due to s 157 of the Facts Act 1950, the evidence of Kpl Stanley Liew was corroborated by his personal former statement.
Held, dismissing the appeal:
1) The text 'mangsa dipenjarakan' as included in the pamphlet was false because the word 'detention' is certainly not synonymous with 'imprisonment'. It is clear in the definition found in various dictionaries that the expression 'prison' pertains to a person sent to penitentiary after the court of law has convicted him and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment. Therefore , if the under-aged young lady was held in Bukit Aman sometime later it was at Taman Seri Puteri, she has not been imprisoned (see p 586B-G). 1 2k 2 MLJ 577 at 578
1) Where a person is recharged with an offence under s 8A(1), there is a supposition that the accused maliciously posted the phony news. To rebut the presumption, the accused only need show that prior to distribution he offers taken affordable measures to verify the reality of the news. The ordinary person on the street test does not apply in a criminal prosecution under s 8A(1); hence the Court docket of Appeal had erred in making use of the test. However , the words printed by the appellant were identified to be phony and there were no evidence to show the fact that appellant required reasonable actions to check the truth in the words complained of. Therefore , the appellant was actuated by real malice in publishing what 'Mangsa Dipenjarakan' (see pp 587D-E, I-588D). 1) The court is not precluded from taking a look at the Record of Parliamentary Debates of the home of Staff for the purpose of determining whether the appellant had used reasonable steps in Parliament to confirm the truth from the words lamented of. Afterexamining the same, it was found that there was zero evidence of these kinds of measures taken by the appellant (see g 591C-D, G). 1)...